well that's only because the last few pages have been informative and logical arguments/opinions. The 110% Trump supporters have fell silent because the A)can't depute the facts laid out before them ... B)too embarrassed to try to depute the facts laid out before them ...

bravo on the fact checking, I only wish more people would take a few extra minutes out of their day to do the same when picking a candidate to vote for .. instead of just voting for the best Tweet they read that day ....

Eh no, we've sorted nothing out and I doubt anyone has changed their mind at all.

Redmask wrote on Sep 25, 2016, 00:09:They would rather burn it all to the ground with Trump than see Clinton elected.

The thing that bothers me about this attitude is it shows little imagination for how bad things can get. If you place the last 70 years or so, since the end of World War II, in the broad context of human history, then it becomes immediately clear that we were fortunate enough to live in arguably the greatest golden age humankind has ever experienced. The world has never been more prosperous, more peaceful, or more free, for more people, than it has in the latter half of the 20th century and the first few decades of the 21st. That's not to say things are perfect -- far from it -- but that most humans have endured lives far more brutal, far more violent, far poorer, and far shorter with far more loss. The last time humans came close to enjoying what we have, it was the second century AD at the height of the Roman Empire.

But Rome fell.

Our civilization is robust, but it's not impervious. A truly catastrophic leader can deal irreparable damage to a society, that perhaps doesn't destroy things overnight (although in the age of nuclear weapons don't rule it out), but nevertheless precipitates a long, irrecoverable decline and fall. This has happened over and over again throughout world history. For Rome, see Commodus. For Ancient Athens, see Alcibiades and the Sicilian expedition. For a hypothetical, read Plato's discussion in the Republic of how democracies devolve into tyrannies, and his description of the tyrannical man, and tell me that when you look at Trump you don't see that same passion-enslaved man -- always desirous of praise and popularity -- a man unable to control his desires or even himself.

This isn't to say our society doesn't have major problems and inequities that aren't being addressed by our national politics. No one is wrong to organize and press for change. But that doesn't mean we can be foolish when it comes time to select our president. We cannot claim a lack of historical imagination and perspective as an excuse for burning down a system that has given us the one of the great (if not the greatest) golden ages ever lived by humans. Things could be far better, but they could also be much much much worse, and the odds for rolling the dice on Trump should give any thinking person pause.

Very well said. The last 70 years; or nearly one human life span.

I was talking to a ~70 year old man recently and he was telling me about how I shouldn't worry, these things work out, it's never as bad as it seems. It occurred to me that as a baby boomer, his existence was dependent on exactly that *not* happening, and that as a member of the oldest generation, he represents the fact that people who lived through WW2 are dying off, lessons forgotten.

For all the problems in politics today, things could get much, much worse. I hate seeing people refer to the UN/EU/NATO as people pointlessly sitting in a room arguing when that has replaced people pointlessly dying on a field.

Slick wrote on Sep 24, 2016, 23:06:Yeah, either he's the best actor alive, or he's a dangerous manipulative, subversive, hateful, xenophobic, pathological liar that wants to burn everything to the ground. I really wish that calling "Hitler" on someone wasn't so overused, It's hard to think of a more apt comparison. Although I'd love to read a comprehensive list of all the attributes and similarities of Hitler's rise to power, and what Trump is doing. I mean besides the obvious that he kept a book of Hitler's speeches at his bedside. Not my idea of a good bedside read, but to be fair, it's probably the only way he can cum anymore.

And yes, the Dunning–Kruger effect, fascinating stuff:

It's an interesting concept, but if you try hard enough you can persuade yourself that everyone you disagree with is an example of this. There's more to it than a stupid person reaching a stupid conclusion.

Godwin's Law is about hyperbole. When a presidential candidate talks about tracking everyone of a particular religion, comparisons are no longer hyperbolic.

Muscular Beaver wrote on Sep 24, 2016, 10:17:The hypocrisy in this thread and on this topic in general is sickening, to say the least.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing it in this thread.

Like always, they dont seem to care. Its like theres a huge competition going on whos the biggest hypocrite. The term hypocrite seems to be a compliment to them.

Who is "they"? People are rarely aware of when they are being hypocritical by their own interpretation, never mind yours. I have no idea who you mean.

Thats exactly the problem. If you cant recognize obvious hypocrisy anymore, then nobody can explain it to you, because youre most likely ignoring it on purpose, because youre biased. And Im surely not going to get into this brainless flamewar by trying to. People need to realize it themselves, even friends telling it them will make most people tick out and rather end the friendship, than admit it.

Well, I don't know if this was his point or not, but there is a neurological condition where people who are bad at something literally don't have the skillset to UNDERSTAND that they're bad at it.

Extrapolated, this could explain that people who don't understand that they're full of shit are literally lacking the brain functions to even understand that they're full of shit.

I wasn't referring to the Dunning-Kruger effect specifically but it's that sort of thing, I just don't think people are usually aware when they're being hypocritical. Muscular Beaver thinks otherwise and this is just my judgement so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

It is a problem. If we aren't aware of it then recognising this in ourselves is hard because "in my opinion, my opinions are consistent" will be the natural quick conclusion. I think few people consider their perspective from another perspective. This isn't new but it seems amplified.

Of course, someone who disagrees with me might say I don't consider other perspectives and hey, I'm not flawless. No, really.

The hilarious/sad thing is that's just the last seven days, and only the blatant/major lies. The man is a blackhole of insecurity requiring a steady stream of bluster and bullshit to fill it. Most of us figure out that character matters far more than juvenile dominance displays by about the time we graduate from high school. Why would we give drone strike authority to someone who emotionally and socially never left the high school locker room?

Is he capable of doing anything that isn't based around his money? He can't seem to handle anyone who isn't willing to put up with him to get at his wallet. International politics is out of his league; Russia, China, etc would have him for dinner.

Worse than his lies are the jokes about assassination and hacking, and his obviously baseless comments about how the election will be rigged. These are not things a serious political figure should say. Democracy is fragile and he is undermining it. He doesn't care about the high potential for violence on the streets if he loses the election or gets impeached (because without his money's influence, he's just a hotheaded pathological liar).

Task wrote on Sep 24, 2016, 13:56:And to Cutter, aren't you Canadian and you're saying Third Parties can't win? It wasn't long ago when the "liberal party" dropped to third party status in Canada, then came back.

Canada is different. Pretty much everywhere is different, the US is much more dominated by two parties than other democracies.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Aug 26, 2016, 06:53:If a person turns around and says "we need xyz thing(be it forced quotas, or whatever else) because reasons to get women into an industry" to get people into the industry that's wrong. That's openly promoting a sexist pov, someone like me who supports merit, believes in a meritocracy the only people that should be hired for something are those that a) want to be there. b) have the skills to do the job and show that they're the top.

As you know, "*that* gay" was banned for repeatedly breaking the Twitter terms of service, yet you and people like you call for him to be given special status when it's convenient for you.

Slick wrote on Sep 23, 2016, 21:47:I know I'm going way off topic, but I enjoy Keith Olbermann, he's articulate, perceptive, and unlike most liberal democrats, seems to have the ability to actually get MAD at the shit that should be making people MAD.

I quite like him but he is very much seen as a whiny liberal elite and I think he preaches to the choir - i.e. he sounds good only to people who already agree with him. He donated money to the Democrats, which is an incredibly dumb and unethical thing for someone in his position to do. That's a terrible look for a newscaster, much worse than Luckey's foolishness.

Olbermann was never a "newscaster". He went from sportscaster straight to op-ed, because he was so effective at his rants about Bush. I don't really see how it's unethical for an oped host to be up front about his political donations. I do hope (but don't really expect) that he'll reconsider his party affiliations now that the DNC has been caught red-handed being involved in traditionally Republican practices of voter suppression and such.

Oh, apologies, I thought he was a newscaster (what's the normal US word? Anchorman?) before he did op-ed pieces. That's not as bad, although it's possible he could have been wanted to buy favour from the candidates so there's still a conflict of interest.

Quboid wrote on Sep 23, 2016, 20:48:What a load of garbage, far right fantasy with no relevance to reality. Honestly, pointing out bigotry is demagogy? Trump isn't just an embarrassment, he is dangerous.

Slick wrote on Sep 23, 2016, 21:47:I know I'm going way off topic, but I enjoy Keith Olbermann, he's articulate, perceptive, and unlike most liberal democrats, seems to have the ability to actually get MAD at the shit that should be making people MAD.

I quite like him but he is very much seen as a whiny liberal elite and I think he preaches to the choir - i.e. he sounds good only to people who already agree with him. He donated money to the Democrats, which is an incredibly dumb and unethical thing for someone in his position to do. That's a terrible look for a newscaster, much worse than Luckey's foolishness.

Well, I agree with you, but at the same time he should have the right to support who he wants to support. Although it destroys any idea of impartiality for his profession. I think that his points are well-illustrated, and backed up enough that his facts should stand on their own, and not be up to scrutiny because of his political leanings. Not to mention he's quite obvious an outspoken liberal.

He does have that right, but as with Luckey people have the right to not like it and when his impartiality is in question because of a conflict of interest, like you say, that's a professional problem.

This doesn't mean he doesn't have a point but right off the bat people will distrust him. It's ad hominem but that's how it goes. He blew it, he can't front a persuasive campaign. Someone else needs to make those points.

Slick wrote on Sep 23, 2016, 21:47:I know I'm going way off topic, but I enjoy Keith Olbermann, he's articulate, perceptive, and unlike most liberal democrats, seems to have the ability to actually get MAD at the shit that should be making people MAD.

I quite like him but he is very much seen as a whiny liberal elite and I think he preaches to the choir - i.e. he sounds good only to people who already agree with him. He donated money to the Democrats, which is an incredibly dumb and unethical thing for someone in his position to do. That's a terrible look for a newscaster, much worse than Luckey's foolishness.

Cutter wrote on Sep 23, 2016, 20:09:No surprise there. It's not like a graphical pig of a game. This is the first Civ I'm going to wait on however. I really don't like how Firaxis is really only selling a partially finished game just to sell DLC to make the game what it should be from the start.

Where are you getting that from? They've said that all the features of Civ 5 with expansions will be in the game at launch. I think that's extremely ambitious but it's what they claimed.

You're waiting on the game because of some DLC civilizations? They've always done that. I don't really give a shit about some extra civs.

I'm wary of that claim to be honest, it sounds like a cheap PR soundbite. Is every feature in with at least as much depth, or do they mean it in general terms "Civ 6 also has diplomacy"?

However, that doesn't have to matter. It's a new game with new ideas and the features should be designed around the new vision. Some old features won't make sense anymore, some will need adapted, some can be considered low priority so ignored (that sounds bad but it's inevitable in every project; they have to draw the line somewhere). Is it good in its own right? Are there any glaring gaps?

I thought base Civ 5 was good and nearly fulfilled that standard (from a design point of view; there were technical issues particularly with AI). It did have a glaring gap in the diplomacy section, where the lack of options compared to Civ 4 really stood out and I immediately knew that DLC would add some sort of UN mechanic. Still, I feel I got good value out of Civ 5 at launch and after buying each expansion pack.

I like what I've seen of Civ 6, I'll probably pick it up after the initial reaction is in.

I don't particularly care about some guy's dumb political views but funding shitposting is ridiculous behaviour for a public figure (or an adult). Making any political statement is going to annoy plenty of people, who are free to think and, to a point, react as they see fit.

It's petty and self-defeating to stop making software for the Rift. That's also childish.

Darks wrote on Sep 23, 2016, 11:52:This game was supposed to be delivered on around Nov of 2014 2 years after it was successfully funded on Nov 2012.

That's absolutely false. I don't remember there being a release date when I backed it, but it was pretty clear that this would be a looong time in the making.

You better go and check the Kick starter page again son. It clearly states the game was to be deliver around Nov 2014.

All I can see is that the pledges would be delivered in 2014. If you thought that this would mean the final game, I think the only person you should be mad at here is yourself. Everyone knew it would take a much longer time to make the game. What did you do, back it without even looking at it? If you didn't back it, why are you complaining? I don't need you to give me investment advice. I made it 4 years ago and it's raising in value.

You are so delusional, that date is not just for the pledges, its also for the delivery of the game. Do yourself a favor and go away, if you cant see the reality of this game and whats its become then your a lost cause.

And not once did I ever tell you to not support the game, I only merely pointed out the facts, some you seem to be in denial about.

You're delusional if you think that Kickstarter dates are absolutes.

So there was a release date on Kickstarter after all?

The Kickstarter Nov 2014 release date (which definitely does exist) doesn't matter because we've all known for years that that project doesn't exist any more. Criticising them for changing the project is fair, criticising them for a much larger project taking much more time is not.